The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 145) - CRIMINAL LAW OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND PUBLIC WORSHIP Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 June 1985 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE f4.90 net 442 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Ralph Gibson , Chairman. Mr. Trevor M. Aldridge. Mr. Brian J. Davenport, Q.C. Professor Julian Farrand. Mrs. Brenda Hoggett. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr. J. G. H. Gasson, and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobald’s Road, London WClN 2BQ. 11 OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND PUBLIC WORSHIP CONTENTS Paragraphs Page PART I: INTRODUCTION ..... : .. 1.1-1.4 1 PART 11: BLASPHEMY AND BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL 2.1-2.57 3 A . What is blasphemy? ......... 2.1-2.2 3 B . The working paper and response to it .....2.3-2.16 4 1. The working paper .........2.3-2.5 4 2 . The response ...........2.6-2.16 5 (a) The character of the response .... 2.6-2.8 5 (b) The response favouring retention of an offence of blasphemy .......2.9-2.14 6 (c) The response favouring abolition without replacement .........2.15-2.16 9 C . Shortcomings in the present law ......2.17-2.18 9 D . What conduct is penalised only by the common law? 2.19 11 E . The arguments for a law of blasphemy reconsidered 2.20-2.53 12 1. The protection of religion and religious beliefs 2.23-2.25 13 2 . The protection of public order ......2.26-2.29 14 3 . The protection of society .......2.30-2.36 16 4 . The protection of religious feelings ....2.37-2.42 20 5 . Some further arguments considered ....2.43-2.47 23 6 . Possible new offences ........2.48-2.53 26 (a) Outraging religious feelings .....2.48-2.5 1 26 (b) Public display of offensive religious matter 2.52 28 (c) Inciting religious hatred ...... 2.53 28 F. Conclusions and recommendation .....2.54-2.57 28 PART 111: OFFENCES RELATING TO PUBLIC WORSHIP .............3.1-3.25 30 A . Introduction ........... 3.1-3.3 30 B . The present law .......... 3.4-3.13 31 1. Common law ........... 3.4 31 2 . Statute law ............3.5-3.13 31 C . The working paper proposals and response . 3.14-3.15 34 D . Are new offences needed? .......3.16-3.18 35 E . Possible new offences ........3.19-3.22 36 1. Disrupting services of religious worship ... 3.20 37 2 . Offensive behaviour in places of worship ...3.21-3.22 38 F . Abolitions and repeals ........3.23-3.25 39 1. Abolitions ........... 3.24 39 2 . Repeals ............. 3.25 39 ... U1 Paragraphs Page PART IV: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 40 NOTE OF DISSENT .......... 41 I APPENDIX: Draft Blasphemy Bill and Explanatory Notes ........... 46 I iv THE LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LAW OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND PUBLIC WORSHIP To the Right Honourable the Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, C. H., Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report contains our final recommendations for abolishing or repeal- ing certain common law and old statutory offences in the field of offences relating to religion and public worship. The recommendations relate, in the first place, to offences against religion. In that context we recommend the abolition of the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. In regard to offences relating to public worship, we recommend the abolition of certain common law offences concerned with disturbances to public worship. A draft Bill which would give effect to these recommendations is to be found in Appendix A. 1.2 Our work in this area commenced in the wake of the trial in July 1977 of the editor of Gay News' on a charge of blasphemous libel, the first such case to come to trial since 1922. After a preliminary invitation for views on the subject initiated through the correspondence columns of selected newspapers and journals, we published our working paper in April 1981containing provisional proposals for reform of the law. By this time, the Gay News case had come before the Court of Appeal and House of Lords.2 Substantial work on a report was delayed pending the disposal of proceedings in this case before the Euro- pean Commission of Human right^,^ which on 7 May 1982 declared the application made to be inadmissible. 1.3 This report takes account of the exceptionally heavy response to the provisional proposals in our working paper. The weight of that response related to the proposals made in regard to the law of blasphemy and it will be convenient to describe the nature of that response in Part I1 of this report, which deals with that subject. Part 111 deals with offences relating to distur- bances in places of worship and Part IV summarises our recommendations. 1.4 In this introduction it remains only to note, as we customarily do insour reports relating to substantive criminal offences, that our work is undertaken as R. v. Lemon, R. v. Gay News Ltd., CentralCriminal Court, 11 July 1977 (JudgeKing-Hamilton Q.C.). See [1979] Q.B. 10(C.A.) and [1979] A.C. 617 sub nom. Whitehouse v. Lemon, Whitehousev. Gay News Ltd. Gay News Ltd.and Another v. United Kingdom. Application No. 8710/79,5 E.H.R.R. 123. 1 part of our programme for codification of the criminal law. Such codification necessarily entails the abolition of the offences which exist by virtue only of the common law and, so far as may be necessary, the enactment of new statutory offences in their place. The process of abolition and replacement requires here, as it has elsewhere in our programme, consideration of the need for the common law offences proposed for abolition and of any new offences to replace them. These considerations are of particular pertinence in the context of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, where in ,substance the offences exist wholly by virtue of judicial decisions made over a period of more than three cent~ries.~ - The one offence-creating statute, the Blasphemy Act 1697, was repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967, s.13 and Sched. 4, Pt. 1. Certain ancient statutory offences of heresy and the like, contained in the Sacrament Act 1547, the Act of Supremacy 1558 and the Act of Uniformity 1662, were repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 and the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. 2 PART I1 BLASPHEMY AND BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL A. What is blasphemy? 2.1 There is no single, comprehensive definition of the common law offence of blasphemy and its written form of blasphemous libel, and none was offered by the House of Lords in the case of Whitehouse v. Lemon (“the Guy News case”).’ But the trial judge in that case said in the course of his summing up that blasphemous libel is committed if there is published any writing concerning God or Christ, the Christian religion, the Bible, or some sacred subject, using words which are scurrilous, abusive or offensive and which tend to vilify the Christian religion and therefore have a tendency to lead to a breach of the peace. And Lord Scarman in that case2 approved the definition in Stephen’s Digest of Criminal Law3 which differs only by omitting from the definition offered by the trial judge the reference to a tendency to lead to a breach of the peace; this, Lord Scarman said, was no more than a reminder of the character of the offence rather than an essential element of it.4 Both definitions empha- sise the strongly offensive character that material must possess in order for it to be penalised by the common law, which distinguishes the legal definition of blasphemy from its far broader dictionary meaning of any “impious or profane talk”.5 Having regard to the character of the response to our working paper which we describe below, it is worth emphasising here that this report is concerned only with the common law offence: it has no bearing upon and makes no recommendations affecting the legal position relating to what some may consider to be distasteful language in the media or elsewhere save in so far as that language may fall within the bounds of the offence of blasphemy as described above. 2.2 Our working paper contained a detailed examination of the history of this offence and of its constituent elements,6 which we do not repeat here. For present purposes it is sufficient to note, first, that it appears that the offence protects only the Christian religion, together with the rituals and doctrines of the Church of England.7 Secondly, it is now established that no mental element is required for commission of the offence other than an intention to publish the offending words.s Thirdly, there are statutory provisions which require the [1979] A.C. 617. * [1979] A.C. 617 at pp. 665-666. Article 214, 9th ed. (1950), which states- “Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language.